Effective onboarding and employee engagement

1. 1
INTRODUCTION
 The topic is all about the behavior of employees towards their Organization.
 It includes the Epicenter employee behavior.
 An Introduction to employee engagement examines what is meant by
employee engagement, why organization is interested in it, how employers can
build an engaged workforce and how it can be measured.
 Now-a-days employee engagement in India has increased in height.
 The cultural and historical impacts.
 Employee engagement is the level of commitment and involvement an
employee has towards their organization and its values.
 Need for employee opportunity in India.
 An engaged employee is aware of business context, and works with colleagues
to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organization.
 The employers and their ability to create the conditions that promote employee
engagement.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
 To measure employee engagement in Organization.
 To identify the role and impact of organizational culture in driving
employee engagement.
 To develop a holistic employee engagement model.
 To know about the awareness of their work to the employees.
 To know about the job opportunity to the employees.
 To know about the engagement process in the organization.

2. 2
Need for the study:
 Employee engagement helps employees change their roles to better fit their
talents.
 This requires self awareness of strengths and weaknesses on the part of both
the manager and employee and a willingness to be flexible and find solutions.
 To assess whether there is a link between employee engagement and
productivity
Importance of the study:
 Employees are engaged in their work and committed to their organizations give
companies crucial competitive advantage.
 Thus, it is not surprising that organizations of all sizes and types have invested
substantially in policies and practices that foster engagement and commitment
in their work forces.
 In addition, engaged employees may be more likely to commit to staying with
their current organization.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Data collection method:
 Primary data
 Secondary data
Primary data is collected through;
 Observation
 Filling up of the questionnaire from employees.
Secondary data is gathered through;
 The help of a Epicenter Management who engages the employees in their work
or duties.
 From various websites, newspaper, etc.

3. 3
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
 This research has a number of significant limitations, which should be noted.
Firstly, a possible limitation is the representativeness of the sample
 Secondly, the empirical part of the research has a limited generalization.
Researchers have shown that the level of engagement depends on the size of
the organization. Therefore, the level of engagement that the respondents
indicate might not correspond to the engagement level of another educational
organization of a different size. Furthermore, the level of engagement
employees have shown in this study might not be true for the educational
organizations of the similar size in other countries, as the level of engagement
varies geographically.
 Thirdly, limitation is related to the list of chosen antecedents of engagement.
The list of twelve factors was made on the basis of the existing engagement
literature with attempt to include factors especially important for administrative
workers in educational institutions. The list appears to cover the most
important antecedents of engagement.
 However, as the knowledge regarding the specific drivers of engagement for
this group of employees is limited, there is a risk that some important drivers
were not included in the list.

4. 4
COMPANY PROFILE
From quieter flights and safer train rides to more reliable energy supply, we strive to
provide comprehensive solutions that help our clients achieve their operational and
business goals. To us, problems are an opportunity to use our extensive global
experience and industry knowledge creatively to help our clients do more-we make
them more capable, more flexible, and more competitive.
Founded in 1991, Cyient provides engineering, manufacturing, geospatial, network,
and operations management services to global industry leaders. We deliver innovative
solutions that add value to businesses through the deployment of robust processes and
state-of-the-art technology. Our high quality products and services help clients
leverage market opportunities and gain the competitive advantage.
To ensure streamlined efficiency and seamless operations, we have key centers at
strategic locations across the globe.
Cyient binds people, knowledge, and innovation to help clients, industry stakeholders,
and the global communities we serve achieve sustainable growth.
For over 25 years, we have carefully built and nurtured an ecosystem that resonates
with our clients’ cultures, encourages innovation, and maintains excellence in
execution. Our belief in human ingenuity, along with a constant focus on excellence,
has resulted in over 50 patents and millions of hours in productivity savings for our
clients.
We use cookies
Cyient uses cookies, pixel tags and similar technologies to enhance your experience on
this website and the way it functions for you as a visitor. A cookie is a text file that is
stored on your device. We use these text files for operation of our website, our own
analytical purposes and to personalize content.
If you object to cookies or want to delete any cookies that are already stored on your
computer, you should follow the instructions for deleting existing cookies and
disabling future cookies on your web browser or equivalent software. Further
information is available.

5. 5
Remember, if you do disable or delete cookies, your experience on the website will be
hampered.
Awards
 Recognised as an ‘established and expansive’ player in engineering research and
development(ER&D) by Zinnov
 Supplier of the Year Award 2015 by Boeing for the third time
 National Award for Excellence in Corporate Governance, ICSI, 2014
 Global Services Supplier of the Year, Alstom Transportation, 2014
 Supplier of the Year, The Boeing Company, 2012, 2010
 Leader in R&D Services for Aerospace & Defense and Transportation, Zinnov
Consulting, 2012, 2011
 Golden Peacock Award for Demonstrated Excellence in Corporate Governance 2012
 Leader in Engineering Services and Outsourced Product Development, Global
Services 100, 2012
 Best Indian Company in US in Technology and Communications, 2012
 Boeing Performance Excellence Award, The Boeing Company 2012
 Supplier of the Year, Hamilton Sundstrand, 2011, 2010
 Highest Productivity Award, Pratt & Whitney 2012, 2011, 2009
 Infotech Named to IAOP’s 2012 Global Outsourcing 100 List
 B.V.R Mohan Reddy Receives the Prestigious ASME Leadership Award 2011
 Infotech Enterprises Recognized for Innovative HR Practices at the Asia Pacific
HRM Congress 2011
 Supplier Productivity Innovation Award - 2010

6. 6
 Geospatial Excellence Award for Infotech's CGIS Project at MapAsia 2010
 Infotech's UGIS Implementation Wins PCQuest Awards 2010
 Infotech Wins the TomTom Performance Cup 2009
 GITA Excellence Award 2008 by GITA-ANZ for E-GIS Implementation
 The Edison Award 2008 Infotech's UGIS Implementation
 UTC Supplier Gold in the Year 2008
 ACE Gold
 2006 General Procurement Key Supplier of the Year
 Optistruct Weight Reduction Initiatives Award
Social Responsibilty
The Cyient Approach
Taking Small Steps Towards Creating Lasting Change
Our relationships with our clients grow the more we do for them. We call this the
virtuous circle. And it is precisely the same philosophy that we have towards our
social responsibilities. We believe that the concept of the virtuous circle extends to the
way we have taken up cleanliness, education, and digital awareness as our focus areas
for social responsibility. We believe that the more we give back to the society, the
more they prosper, and the more it helps us grow.
To support our commitment towards the society, we have allocated 2% of our yearly
profits as our annual budget for our corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities.
Education and sanitation
We have made small but definite forays in the area of education by adopting a primary
school. Our continuous efforts have helped improve the overall pass rates as well as
the attendance of girl students. We provide sanitary toilet and clean drinking water
facilities that ensure a hygienic environment. We have also put together an online

7. 7
digital library, which offers periodicals, study materials, and other resources for the
students, free of cost. Our digital library consists of several computers, a robust
Internet connection, and a library assistant who helps and guides the students.
Digital literacy and skill development
We empower local communities through digital literacy and have established a
National Digital Literacy Mission (NDLM) to ensure that at least one member from
each local family increases their chances of gainful employment. We also have a skill
development initiative that focuses on training students in communication and life
skills to ensure that they have a better chance at gaining employment.
Disaster relief assistance
We are always prepared to provide humanitarian aid and disaster relief support in
times of a catastrophe. We provided backpacks, school supplies, and other materials to
3000 school students in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and contributed INR 4
million towards helping the victims of Uttarakhand floods.
We also actively contribute to innovation initiatives at LV Prasad Eye Institute, a
leading health institution. Our target contribution to this cause is INR 25 million over a
five- year period.
We apply our brand promise of Designing Tomorrow Together to our CSR activities
as well.
Designing: Solving social problems by using our expertise creatively
Tomorrow: Shaping a better tomorrow through our future-facing activities
Together: Doing more, doing better, together with our colleagues, clients, partners,
and the society to generate collective intelligence and trust.
Quality
At Cyient, we are committed to delight our Clients by consistently providing
sustainable solutions complying with the applicable requirements and continually
improving the processes to improve human lives.

8. 8
We at Cyient understand and are committed to live up to our brand promise of
“Designing Tomorrow Together”.
Quality Objectives
 Aspire to achieve best-in-class levels of Client, Quality and Delivery performance
metrics for the industries we serve as per the respective roadmaps
 Improve or sustain stakeholders engagement scores
 Focus on building skills and capabilities to keep up-to-date with the demands of the
changing business
Diversity & Inclusion
“As an organization, we are fully committed to embracing diversity and inclusion in
every aspect of our business. We recognize that, in order to achieve our long term
goals, we must make diversity and inclusion a business imperative. We will
proactively focus on building a diverse and inclusive workplace that fosters a culture
of openness, which will drive innovation and achieve market leading results. In doing
so, we will continue to honor and comply with the culture, customs and laws of the
lands we operate in.”
KRISHNA BODANAPU
Managing Director & CEO

9. 9
Theoretical frame work
o Concept of employee engagement
 Defining Engagement
One of the challenges of defining engagement is the lack of a universal definition of
employee engagement, as a research focus on employees’ work engagement is
relatively new. More often than not, definitions of engagement include cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral components. The cognitive aspect of engagement includes
employees’ beliefs about the organization, management and working conditions. The
emotional components (or beliefs) defines employees positive attitude, how they "feel"
about their employer, company’s values, leaders and working conditions. The
behavioral components measure the willingness to act in certain ways, skills which
employees offer and willingness to go the "extra mile” — some of these components
are often used for the employee engagement definition. Academic literature presents a
couple of definitions of engagement. One of the first and most recognizable definitions
of engagement is provided by Kahn (1990) and it suggests that personal engagement
is: “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in
engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and
emotionally during role performance (p.694)”. His view concentrates on the personal
engagement of workers in order to emphasize performance improvement through
employing and expressing themselves on physical, cognitive and emotional levels
during their performance. In the case of disengagement employees withdraw from role
performance and try to defend themselves physically, cognitively or emotionally. In
summary, following Kahn (1990), engagement means the employees’ psychological
presence at work. Burnout researchers suggest that engagement is the opposite, a
positive antitheses of burnout. Maslach et al. (2001) state that “engagement is
characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy ”, the direct opposite of the three
burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and ineffectiveness. Schaufeli et al.
(2002), present work engagement as contrastive concept to burnout, they define work
engagement “as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized
by vigor, dedication, and absorption”. They also state that engagement is not a
momentary and specific state, but it is “a more persistent and pervasive affective-
cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or

10. 10
behavior”. In his research Harter et al. (2002) referred to employee engagement as “the
individuals’ involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work”.
Three well-known organizations in the human resource area also offer definitions on
the term. Perrin’s Global Workforce Study (Towers Perrin, 2003) definition defines
engagement “as employees’ willingness and ability to contribute to company success”,
by putting “discretionary effort into their work, in the form of extra time, brainpower
and energy (p.1)”. Gallup organization defines employee engagement as the
involvement with and enthusiasm for work. Gallup as cited by Dernovsek (2008)
likens employee engagement to a positive employees’ emotional attachment and
employees’ commitment. Institute of employment studies defines employee
engagement as “a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and
its value. An engaged employee is aware of business context, and works with
colleagues to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organization.
The organization must work to develop and nurture engagement, which requires a two-
way relationship between employer and employee”. After the process of synthesizing
definitions and conceptual frameworks of employee engagement, Shuck and Wollard
suggested an emergent definition of the concept. They propose to define employee
engagement as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state
directed toward desired organizational outcomes”.
Similarity and distinction from other organizational constructs
Engagement is related to, but distinct from established organizational behavior
constructs such as organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB), job satisfaction, or job involvement. There clear overlaps with organizational
commitment and OCB, but there are also differences. Even thought engagement
includes many elements of commitment and OCB, but none of them reflect the two
way nature of engagement – the organization works on engaging the employee, who in
respond chooses the level of engagement to offer back. First of all let’s discuss
engagement and organizational commitment. Many researchers suggested that
engagement is related to employees’ voluntary behavioral aspects, while
organizational commitment is more attitudinal in nature including affective,
continuance, and normative domains. Saks (2006) also states that organizational
commitment refers only to the employees’ loyalty, attitudes and attachment to the

11. 11
organization and this in turn brings the benefit of employment. But engagement is not
an attitude; it is a degree of how attentive and absorbed employees are in their roles .In
addition, commitment focuses on the organization, while the engagement focuses on
the tasks. Talking about difference between employee engagement and OCB, it should
be said that employee engagement focuses on more formal role performance actions,
which are not voluntary and not extra-role, whereas OCB relates to the voluntary and
informal intentions to help coworkers or the organization on top of what is expected
from them. Job satisfaction has been defined as “the primary affective reactions of an
individual to various facets of the job and to job experiences”. This and other
definitions of job satisfaction emphasize the affective nature of the construct. In
contrast to job satisfaction, engagement is considered a voluntary emotional
commitment that can be influenced by peer/supervisor/organizational support, mutual
trust and personal enthusiasm. Job satisfaction is the extent to which employees use
work as a source of fulfillment of their needs, by which they feel comfortable or avoid
feelings of dissatisfaction. It does not encompass employees’ relationship with the
work itself. Similarities between job involvement and the involvement aspect of
engagement at work can also be found. Lawler and Hall (1970) defined job
involvement as the degree to which the employee perceives the job situation as
important part of their life, because of the opportunity it gives to satisfy a persons’
needs. From this, one can understand that job involvement tends to depend on the
importance of needs and the potential of the job to satisfy the individual needs of the
employee. Therefore, involvement is the result of the employees’ perception of the
need satisfying abilities of the job. Engagement differs from involvement, as it is
concerned more with how the workers employ themselves during job performance.
Furthermore, engagement includes the employee’s energy and emotions.
To summarize the above it can be said that the meaning of engagement can sometimes
overlap with other constructs in organizational behavior, however it is still a distinct
and unique construct, which embraces cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
components that are associated with individual role performance.
Employee engagement models and theory
Kahn’s need satisfying approach the first time employee engagement was mention in
an Academy of Management Journal article called “Psychological Conditions of

12. 12
Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work”. In his article, Kahn defined
personal engagement as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s
“preferred self” in a task behaviors that promote connection to work and to others,
personal presence, and active full role performance”. According to Kahn employees
can be engaged on a physical, emotional and cognitive level: these levels are
significantly affected by three psychological domains: meaningfulness, safety and
availability. In turn, these domains create influence on how employees perceive and
perform their roles at work.
Kahn defines meaningfulness as the positive “sense of return on investment of self in
role of performance” . He describes psychological meaningfulness as a feeling the
person experiences in return for the psychological, cognitive and emotional energy
invested into task performance. The employees experience meaningfulness when they
feel useful, valuable and not taken for granted, and that their work is important,
desired and valued too. Work meaningfulness means that employees are more likely to
dedicate their efforts to specific tasks, instead of withholding – this indicates the
presence of engagement. Furthermore safety was defined as the ability to show one’s
self “without fear or negative consequences to self image, status or career”. The
predictable, consistent and clear situations at work make employees feel safer in their
actions, which also increases the likelihood of engagement.
Availability, the third domain, Kahn defined as the “sense of possessing possessing the
physical, emotional and psychological recourses” necessary to perform task in this
very moment. It measures how ready the employee is, taking into consideration the
distractions they experience.
Organizational outcomes
Organizational Performance
Evidence from a number of studies supports the relation between employee
engagement and organizational outcomes. Studies have shown that employee
engagement have a positive influence on the following organizational performance
indicators: customer satisfaction, productivity, profit, employee turnover and safety.
One of the most important studies, which show the importance of engagement on
business level, was conducted by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002). They connected

13. 13
employee engagement with outcomes, which are directly relevant to most businesses:
customer satisfaction, productivity, profit, employee turnover and safety at work.
Employee engagement had a positive influence on all of the mentioned categories, but
mostly on customer satisfaction–loyalty (p=.33) employee turnover (p=.30) and safety
(p=.32), followed by productivity (p=.25) and profitability (p=.17) (Harter et al.,
2002). One of the explanations of the lower magnitude of correlation between
engagement and two last outcomes can be explained by the fact that these outcomes
are more remote variables, which are also influenced by other variables and indirectly
by employee attitudes. Through their study, the researchers concluded that increasing
employee engagement and building an environment that helps to foster employee
engagement, can significantly increase the companies’ chances of success in their
business. Other researchers, such as Salanova et al. (2005), Bakker and Demerouti
(2007), Hakanen et al. (2006) and Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006), also support Harter
et al.’s(2002) findings and agree that employee engagement could be a predictor of
organizational success, as it seems to have the potential to affect employee retention,
employee loyalty and productivity, with some link to customer satisfaction, which
results a company’s business outcomes
But not everyone totally agrees with the idea that employee engagement boosts
business results. For example, Balain and Sparrow (2009) suggest that the link
between employee engagement and organizational performance is not so strong.
Employee productivity
As Kahn (1990) states, engagement affects employee performance. Other researchers
agree with this. In her research of six public organizations, Sonnentag (2003) found
that a high level of engagement helps employees “in taking initiative and pursuing
learning goals”. Engaged employees develop new knowledge, respond to
opportunities, go the extra mile support the company, and engage themselves in
mentoring and volunteering. In addition, engaged employees are more satisfied with
their job and are more committed to the organization, they have the urge to meet
challenging goals, and they have the urge to succeed. Engaged employees do not hold
back, they not only have more energy, but they also enthusiastically apply their energy
at work. In addition, 16 engaged employees are intensively involved in their work and
pay attention to the details. Engaged employees go beyond the job description, they

14. 14
dynamically change and arrange their job in a way in which it fits the changing work
environment. Furthermore, the positive attitude of engaged employees stimulates the
integrative and creative perspective that adds value to service enterprise. As
researchers state, engaged employees see meaningfulness in their work, If employees
see no meaningfulness in their job, they start to alienate and detach from their work, in
other words they become less committed and motivated at work. Furthermore,
engagement in the meaningful job increases the perception of benefits from work.
Even though neither Khan (1990), nor May et al. (2004) included the outcomes of
engagement in their study, later on Khan (1992) suggested that on the individual level,
engagement influences the quality of an employees’ work and their own experience of
doing their work etc. and on the organizational level, it influences the growth and
productivity of the organization. Salanova, Agut and Peiro agree with this suggestion.
In their study, they found the support of this suggestion, that those who are engaged
perform better . The Institute for Employment Studies summarized the ways in which
engaged employees behave (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Characteristics of engaged employees
Employee retention
Besides the number of researches, who have presented evidence that engagement has
an influence on an employees’ intentions to quit, HR consultancy company Towers
Perrin has also found that highly engaged employees are a more stable employees. The

15. 15
results of their survey showed that around 66% of highly engaged employees had no
plans to leave their job versus 36% of moderately engaged and just 12% of the
disengaged employees (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Relationship between engagement and intent to leave the company
According to Towers Perrin (2003) though high engagement does not guarantee
retention (because a quarter of the employees would still consider the right
opportunity), it does increase the chances that the possibly more attractive employees,
in a competitive labor sense, will stay with the company.
Advocacy of the organization
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2006, as referenced in Scottish
Executive, 2007), states that engaged employees may be advocates of their
organization. Therefore this means that engaged employees are more predisposed to
recommending their organization, as a place to work, or believing in and
recommending the products and services of the organization. Another interesting result
came out of the CIPD's annual employee attitudes and engagement survey. Results
show that employees working in the public sector are more critical to their
organization than their private sector colleagues (CIPD 2006, as referenced in Scottish
Executive, 2007). The same survey also showed that 37% of employees are willing to
do two things. Firstly, they are willing to promote the organization as an employer,
which means that future recruitment costs could be reduced by
recommending/introducing new personnel by existing employees. Secondly, they are
willing to promote its products and services, which allows for free marketing and
enhances the public awareness of the organization.

16. 16
In addition to these findings, the 'Meaning at work research report’ presented by
Penna(2006) notes, that organizations might have a very disengaged group of
employees, to whom they refer as to “corporate terrorist”. According to Penna (2006)
this group of employees would actively discourage others from joining their current
organization. In summary, these two surveys show that employees who are more
engaged are more likely to bring an extra benefit for the company by advocating the
organization, contrary to those who are disengaged and can even harm the company.
Customer loyalty
Although research on the consequences of work engagement has shown its
relationship with positive outcomes such as low absenteeism and low turnover, and
high organizational commitment and performance, little is known about the
consequences of engagement of service workers. Taking a closer look at the specifics
of the administrative workers role, it can be said that the level of their service highly
depends on the climate in the organization and on how the employees feel at work.
How employees feel at work is important, because it influences the quality of their
work and the satisfaction of their clients. This happens because the organization-
customer relationship is managed through their employees. The way an organization
treats their employees, and the way an employee feels during their role performance, is
transmitted on their customers, as they meet face-to-face and work closely together
and observe each other. During this interaction, clients receive both a personal and
psychological experience with the company. Afterward the exchange is complete, the
company is judged depending on the customers experience.
The study by Salanova et al. (2005) showed that organizational resources and the level
of engagement influences the service climate, which effects employee performance
(appraised by the customer) and employee performance makes customers more
satisfied and loyal. Therefore, engagement is the predictor of the service quality, and
respectively the customer loyalty, in the organization. Successful organizational
change
Some authors suggest that employee engagement might play important role in the
implementation of organizational change, because though doing nothing, actions taken

17. 17
by top management teams or external consultants brought mixed success. Graen
(2008) suggests that engaged participants of organizational change mayt be important
in
making organization able to change and adapt to changing environment.
Employee outcomes
 Psychological outcomes
Cartwright and Holmes (2006) suggest that the changing workplace environment
brings changes in the relationship between workers and their employers. When
compared to a traditional workplace environment, two decades ago, now employee-
employer relationships have become more transactional. Before employees offered
their organization loyalty, commitment and trust, and in return expected job security,
training and development, job advancement in their existing organization, but now this
situation has changed. Cartwright and Holmes (2006) state that employers now offer
higher salaries and instead of opportunities for skills development, which would lead
to job advancement, the chance to become more entrepreneurial and manage their own
career in exchange for employees’ efforts, and companies expect these efforts be
higher than before. Authors suggest that such a change in the employee-employer
relationship has frustrated many employees, as they have lost trust in the organization
and they question the meaningfulness of their work. As a result, many employees are
trying to find greater fulfillment from their work. Authors believe that engagement
could help employees in this situation, providing them with the opportunity to invest
themselves in work. Other authors suggested self-efficacy as a possible outcome of
engagement . They state that engaged employees believe they can make a difference in
the organization, which is a powerful predictor of their behavior and performance.
Results of the Towers Perrin survey support this idea:
-four percent of highly engaged employees believe they can positively impact
the quality of their organization’s products, compared with only 31 percent of the
disengaged.

18. 18
 Health and well-being
Some research has presented an idea that engagement may result in a positive health
effect and positive feeling towards the organization and work itself. Gallup
organization reported increased health in engaged employees, with 62 per cent of
engaged employees stating that work positively affects their physical health, compared
with 54 per cent of disengaged employees reporting a negative effect of their work on
their health, and 51 per cent reporting a negative effect on their generall well-being.
Why do engaged employees perform better
Positive emotions
Some researchers describe engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of
mind”. With this state of mind, employees more often experience positive emotions,
such as happiness, joy and enthusiasm. Happy people may be more open to
opportunities at work, more helpful to others, exert more confidence and be generally
more optimistic. For example, joy broadens resources “by creating the urge to play …
and be creative” and interest, broadens resources by creating the desire to explore, to
learn new information and experiences.
Good health
Some researchers present an idea that engagement positively influences an employees’
health, which means that the health condition of engaged employees allows them to
perform better than non-engaged employees. In a study conducted by Hakanen et al.
(2006), they found evidence that work engagement is positively related to self-rated
health and work ability. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) also found a positive connection
between engagement and health. In their study among four different service
organizations, they found that engaged workers suffer less from self-reported
headaches, cardiovascular problems, and stomach aches.
Ability to mobilize resources
Another reason why engaged employees are more productive, could be that engaged
employees are also more successful in mobilizing their job resources, as they have a
better working environment, and more pleasant colleagues to work with, and they are
better at creating their own resources. The Broaden-and-build theory presented by
Fredrickson (2001), claims that the momentary experience of positive emotions can

19. 19
build enduring psychological resources and, in addition, it can “trigger upward spirals
toward enhanced emotional well-being”. This means that positive emotions make
people feel good in the present, but also through their influence on broadened thinking,
positive emotions increase the possibility that people will feel good in the future.
There is also evidence for an upward spiral of work engagement and resources
presented by Xanthopoulou et al. Researchers showed that job and personal resources
resulted in a higher level of engagement one year later. At the same time, engagement
results in an increase of personal resources (optimism, self-efficacy and organization-
based self-esteem) and job resources (social support from colleagues, autonomy,
coaching, and feedback) over time. Similar results were presented by Llorens et al.
(2007). They presented the “gain spiral” of resources, self-efficacy and engagement
over time. The study by Schaufeli et al.’s (2009) also supports this idea. The results of
this study showed that an initial high level of engagement predicted the increase of job
resources the next year, this included: social support, autonomy, learning
opportunities, and performance feedback. So all these findings show that, compared
with non-engaged employees, engaged employees are better able to mobilize both job
and personal resources, which supports their future engagement.
Transfer of engagement
Organizational performance is the result of the combined efforts of the individual
employees. Therefore, it is possible to assume that the transfer of engagement from
one employee to another will increase company performance. Crossover can be
defined as the transfer of positive or negative emotions and experiences from one
person to another.
Some researchers found evidence of emotional transferability , the results of these
research show that:
 A positive mood of the leader is transferred to the employees, resulting in less
effort needed to complete the task and more coordination.
 A team members’ positive mood spreads among other team members and
result in more cooperation and better task performance.
A similar theory was put forward by Bakker et al, who found that team work
engagement was related to individual team members’ engagement. Individual engaged

20. 20
workers spread their optimism, positive attitudes and pro-active behaviors between
their co-workers, creating a positive team climate.
All these findings suggest that engaged employees have a positive influence on their
colleagues and, as a consequence, their team performs better.
 Antecedents of engagement
A lot of the literature on employee engagement comes from practitioner literature and
consulting firm. There is a lack of research on employee engagement in the academic
literature. Though, some of the studies in the academic literature contribute to the
understanding of what drives employee engagement. This section will present the
current thinking and evidence of the catalysts for employee engagement.
While reviewing the academic literature, there is a tendency towards many authors
using antecedents and the driver of engagement interchangeably, however it is also
possible to argue why these two notions should be used separately. For example, one
can say that antecedents are more or less fixed characteristics of the people,
organization or job, such as meaningfulness, whereas drivers are more actions or
activities, such as providing learning opportunities or social support. The main purpose
for this section is to find out which constructs, strategies or conditions have a positive
influence on employee engagement, regardless of whether it is fixed characteristics or
actions. The literature on the antecedents or drivers of employee engagement does not
present a lot of empirical research, however some factors have found empirical
support. For the purpose of this thesis, organization-related antecedents and drivers of
engagement have been combined into four groups, depending on their origin: the task
level, the organization of work level, the interpersonal and social relations level, the
level of organization, and the level of individual.
Task Level
In their research Saks (2006) and Ologbo and Saudah (2011) have differentiated job
engagement from organization engagement and showed that there is a difference
between these two types of engagement. For the purpose of this thesis, interest will be
based in the general engagement of employees at work, both job and organizational
engagement, this section presents the antecedents of both types of engagement. As the
foundation for the possible antecedents of engagement, Saks took Kahn’s (1990) and

21. 21
Maslach et al.’s (2001) models of engagement. Results of this study show that job
characteristics are positively related to job engagement (Saks, 2006). For example,
challenging job, which allows employees to use different skills and gives an
opportunity to contribute to the company’s success, brings employees psychological
meaningfulness and a sense of return to their performance-investments. Kahn (1992)
also states that employees who are involved in jobs, which are high on the core job
characteristics, are more likely to be engaged. According to Hackman and Oldham
(1980), core job characteristics are skill variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy, and feedback. Kahn’s view has also been supported by other authors. In the
study of job resources it was found that feedback and autonomy were positively
associated with work engagement, as they help in achieving work related goals and
may stimulate personal development. At the same time burnout literature sates that the
lack of feedback and autonomy are consistently related to burnout, and cause the range
of withdrawal reactions as they restrain learning and the need for autonomy. The
relationship between job characteristics and employees’ engagement can also be
explained from the social exchange theory’s point of view. According to this theory,
the employee and employer are found in a reciprocal relationship and obligations are
developed during their interactions. Following this interpretation, when employees
receive challenging jobs they feel obligated to show higher level of engagement.
Organization of work Level
Employee development opportunities were also found to have a positive influence on
job engagement. This connection may be due to the reason that many employees
desire to maintain their jobs inventive and interesting by acquiring new skills and
applying new approaches to their daily tasks. This goes hand in hand with Kahn’s
(1990) viewpoint that the ability to learn and to apply new knowledge increases
meaningfulness for employee, which in turn positively influences engagement.
Interpersonal Level
Studies also show that social support from colleagues and supervisors are also
positively associated with work engagement . Supportive colleagues and proper
feedback from supervisors increases the likelihood of being successful in achieving
work goals . Furthermore, social support satisfies employees’ need to belong. In
summary, social support stimulates employee engagement either through satisfaction

22. 22
of basic needs or through the achievement of work goals. Job burnout literature has
also extensively studied social support and has shown that there is a consistent and
strong evidence that lack of social support is linked to burnout. Social support from the
colleagues and supervisor may also be important from the point of view that both these
constructs contribute to the general positive social climate in the organization. In the
research conducted by Hakanen et al. (2006), it was shown that social climate predicts
employee engagement. Studies, that show the connection between social support and
engagement, are in conflict with the study conducted by Saks (2006), who did not find
a significant connection between perceived supervisor support and employee
engagement. The difference of these results and the ones presented later may be due to
the fact that studies were conducted between different employee groups, in different
organizations,industries and countries. These factors may have influenced the
difference in the results.
Organization Level
The organizational level antecedents of employee engagement also found its empirical
support. The feeling of safety presented by Kahn (1990) is influenced by the
predictability and consistency of the procedures used to assign rewards, resources etc.
at work. Procedural justice, which is concerned with the employees’ perception of
fairness of means, used to determine the amount and distribution of resources among
employees, was proven to have a positive effect on job engagement . It can be
explained from the fairness point of view. If the employees perceive an organization to
be just and fair, they will also feel it is fair for them to put in more to work by
increasing their engagement.
Other antecedents of employee engagement on the organizational level are the rewards
and recognition. Following Kahn’s theory (1990), the level of an employees’
engagement depends on the level of returns on their investments of self into work. The
sense of return can come not only from meaningfulness but also from an external
environment like rewards and recognition. Some literature suggests that many
employees like to be distinctively rewarded and recognized for the outstanding work
they do. This means that the amount of received rewards and recognition may
stimulate the employees’ engagement. Maslash et al. (2001) also suggest that the lack
of rewards and recognition can lead to burnout; from this we can say that a sufficient

23. 23
amount of rewards and recognition is important for engagement. Study by Koyuncu et
al. (2006) support this idea and show that the level of rewards and recognition is an
important part of work experience and a strong predictor of engagement. The study
conducted by Ologbo and Saudah (2011) duplicates the result from Koyuncu et al.
(2006) by showing that reward and recognition influences job engagement. However,
these findings contradict the findings of another study, where no significant
connection between rewards and recognition was found.
Robinson (2007) agrees with Saks, and states that other factors besides rewards are
usually more important for engagement. Leadership also plays a role in the level of an
employees’ engagement. Employees need to be confident is their organization; this
confidence can be built through the reliability of the leadership. It can be seen in a
couple of studies that a strong degree of trust and confidence in senior leaders
increases the chances that the employee will repay with organizational engagement, as
trust is an important factor in building relationships. Many researchers have stated that
employees need clarification and communication of a company’s goals and objectives
and to have the feeling of being well informed about what is going on in the company.
One of the publications showed that the availability of information was positively
related to engagement, as the access to information increases the chances that the task
at hand will be completed successfully and that work goals will be achieved.
The image of the organization was also found to be connected with organizational
engagement. The more employees approve the company’s products and services, the
higher the level of organizational engagement they show.
Individual antecedents
Perceived organizational support (POS) was empirically proven to have a positive
influence on job and organization engagement. POS refers to the employees’ beliefs
that an organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. The
amount of support and care employees’ perceive to receive from organization
influences their psychological safety, and enables them to employ their selves without
fear of negative consequences. From Rhoades’ et al.’s (2001) point of view, the
employee and the employer are in a dynamic relationship and employee monitors and
responds to the organizations’ actions towards them. POS makes employees feel
obligated “to care about the organizations welfare and to help the organization reach

24. 24
its objectives”. In other words, when an employee feels that the organization takes care
of them, the employees are expected to want to pay back by becoming more engaged
and helping organization. Recognizing the feeling of obligation does not always bring
its positive effects – the organization needs to establish a context in which the
obligation feels more like a favorable relationship with the organization ,as this will
support favorable treatment by both the employee and the company in the future.
An employees’ perception of the work environment as emotionally and physically
safe,can also be seen as the antecedent to the development of employee engagement .
The study by Xanthopuolou et al. (2007) showed that there is also a connection
between personal resources and an employees’ engagement. Employees’ self-efficacy,
organizational-based self-esteem and optimism are those personal resources, which
can influence employees’ engagemen.
This was supported by Luthans et al’s. study (2006), which showed that employees
who believe that they can meet the demands in a broader context, satisfy their needs
by participating in roles within the organization and believe that they will experience
good outcomes feel more prepared for varying work situations and that they are more
able to control their working environment. These feelings may result in an employee
being more confident and proud of their work, seeing their work as meaningful and as
a result being more engaged. Engaged workers posses personal resources such as self-
efficacy, self-esteem and optimism, which help to control and influence their working
environment. As Kahn (1990) stated, at work employees employ themselves
physically, cognitively and emotionally, therefore they use their inner resources. From
this, one can assume that the level of the employees’ inner resources has an influence
on the level of engagement they show at work. Sonnentag (2003) agrees with this
viewpoint and states that the level of recovery of personal resources has an impact on
the employees experience at work.
He claims that being able to recover in the evening after a working day, or during
weekends, is important for restoring an employees’ physical, emotional and
psychological resources necessary for engaging at work. During his study Sonnentag
found that the employees who get a sufficient recovery during leisure time show
higher level of engagement the next day. Moreover, work engagement was found to be
the mediator of the effect of recovery on the proactive behaviors the next day. In other

25. 25
words, recovered employees were more engaged and showed more personal
initiatives.
In conclusion for this section, it can be said that engagement, which has a positive
effect on the employees’ behavior and attitude, can be derived from a strong mutual
relationship between the co-employees, their employer and the organization as a
whole. It is also important to remember that employees’ resources, and their recovery,
play an important role in the employees’ ability to engage. However, it is important to
note that, as pointed out, it is unlikely that a “one-size fits all” approach will bring its
benefits, as engagement and its drivers depend on the organization, employee group,
the individual and job itself.
Implication for organization
Organizational support of employee engagement
To build employee engagement employers can use different practices. Authors state
that actions should be taken on two levels – individual employee and at the larger
organizational level (Attridge et.al., 2009, as referenced at Attridge 2009). A good
point to start at is the individual level, which according to Attridge (2009) is to change
the way of giving feedback to employees regarding their job performance. It is
understandable that there is a limit to the number of points a manager can address
during the performance review, so it is important that they decide how to best allocate
their time during the feedback process. Some managers decide to concentrate more on
the employees’ performance or personality strengths while others may pay more
attention to performance or personality weaknesses (Corporate Leadership
Council,2002). Some studies have found evidence that job related feedback
concentrating on an employees’ strengths, not weaknesses, increases their engagement
level. Some researchers investigated engaged and disengaged employees regarding
this statement. The work by Coley Smith (2006, as referenced at Attridge 2009)
presents that 77% of engaged employees state that their supervisor focuses on positive
characteristics while giving feedback, compared to 23% of moderately engaged and
only 4% of disengaged employees, who agree with this statement. The survey
conducted by The Corporate Leadership Council (2002), which analyzed 19000
employees and managers in 34 organizations, also presents some interesting findings
(see Figure 3).

26. 26
Figure 3. Impact of formal performance review on employee performance
As shown in the figure, the choice of emphasizing the positive or negative features in
performance reviews has a substantial impact on employee performance. More
precisely, the far left-hand side of the figure shows that an emphasis on performance
strengths in formal reviews can increase performance by 36.4 percent. The second bar
emphasizes on personality strengths, which also have a positive (21.3 percent) impact
on individual performance. The authors of the study state that those employees who
receive feedback, with emphasis on performance strengths, also feel better matched
with their job and believe they have the necessary resources to do their job (Corporate
Leadership Council, 2002). At the same time, the right-hand side of the figure
demonstrates that an emphasis on performance weaknesses can lower employee
performance on 26.8 percent, and these employees are more likely to feel they are not
in the right job (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002)
The message from these studies is a note of caution – organizations should understand
that the way in which they conduct formal reviews with employees is critical. Giving
negative feedback, without suggestions for improving performance, can undermine the

27. 27
goal of the formal review. Though emphasizing performance strengths during the
formal reviews and providing employees with suggestions for how they can better
perform on the job, can increase performance and make employees feel more
comfortable with their work (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002). Besides training
managers to focus on the strength of the employees during performance feedback, it
makes more sense for the organization to prevent the situation of the disengagement at
the first place (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002). Authors suggest many practices
that can help to advance an organization’s health in this way . On the organizational
level, effective practices to prevent disengagement include a better job design,
resource support, working conditions, corporate culture and effective leadership style.
Job design was defined as “...specification of the contents, methods, and
relationships of jobs in order to satisfy technological and organizational
requirements as well as the social and personal requirements of the job holder”
(Buchanan, 1979)
Researchers state that employee engagement can be improved with the help of a better
job design, as specific elements and the job tasks can be designed in a way to benefit
from the employees strengths and, at the same time, employees can be placed into the
jobs, which are better matched to their abilities and knowledge . Researches also
associate a low level of engage ent with a low level of social support from supervisors
and colleagues. Meta-analysis of 73 prior research studies conducted by Rhoades and
Eisenberger (2002), shows that a higher level of POS can decrease ‘strains’ symptoms,
such as feeling fatigued, burnout, anxious and having headaches, amongst employees.
POS is expected to reduce these negative reactions to stressors by signaling the
availability of material as well as emotional support when employees face high
demands at work. One of the studies found that, when job demands are high, employee
engagement can be improved if the organization provides employees with more
support and job resources, such as supervisor support, innovative problem solving,
positive appreciation and collaborative organizational culture. They also provide the
reasons, why these factors can act as a buffer for the increased strain. For example,
supervisor support may reduce the negative influence of job demands on strain,
because supervisor’s support and appreciation puts demands into different perspective.

28. 28
Positive appreciation helps to maintain an employees’ motivation and shows that
employees should continues in a certain direction. Organizational culture and
innovativeness also may be highly important to maintaining engagement between
employees, as this maintains their work as both interesting and challenging. Therefore,
providing employees with the right job resources can protect them from negative
consequences, depending on the kind of work, and support the employee engagement.
Furthermore, to create the appropriate environment for future engagement,
organizations should avoid or reduce the main predictors of an employees’ exhaustion
and/or burnout, such as difficult job demands and stressful working conditions.
Practices can include removing problematic or unfavorable aspects of the tasks and
technical operations, providing more user-friendly workplace equipment, introducing
more role clarity and decision making authority of workers, and creating and
supporting opportunities for positive social interactions at work. Even Gallup method
of assessment of work engagement includes the question of having a best friend at
work.
1. Supporting work-life balance. Work-life balance programs recognize that workers
have responsibilities outside work and include not only practices and policies
regarding elderly and child care but also other responsibilities in employees’ private
lives that require flexibility.
Examples of work-life balance programs include flexible scheduling, childcare,
eldercare, and provision of job security.
2. Promoting employee growth and development. With employee growth and
development programs, organizations invest in the employees’ skills potential, which
makes them more committed to the organization and increases the chances for internal
career development. Employee growth and development programs examples include
additional on-the-job training, leadership development and provision of internal career
opportunities.
3. Encouraging employee health and safety at the workplace. Health and safety
programs are designed to maximize employees’ physical and mental health. Such
programs might include employee assistance programs for alcohol and drug addiction,
wellness screenings, stress management training, counseling and safety training.

29. 29
4. Praise and recognition. Recognition programs, which make employees feel
rewarded for their contribution to the organization, are usually perceived as monetary
rewards (bonuses or raises, but they can also include other types of rewards such as
honorary ceremonies, personal acknowledgment in companies’ newsletters etc
Other researchers suggest engagement practices, which can be taken on the managerial
level, that facilitate community-building efforts in organization:
1. Communicating a compelling message. To successfully engage people, the
company needs to capture their hearts and minds.
2. Building a guiding coalition. To build a community, it is necessary to create a core
leadership team that supports common goals.
3. Creating principle-based versus compliance-based guidelines for decisions and
behaviors. Principle-based guidelines are preferred for promoting engagement and
commitment, because it requires an individual interpretation of messages and gives the
opportunity to personalize meaning. Whereas, compliance-based guidelines states that
not demonstrating the desired behavior will result in negative consequences.
(Examples of principle-based guidelines: Treat others the way that you would like to
be treated. Be all that you can be. Examples of compliance-based guidelines include:
Don't walk on the grass. You will be docked an hour's pay if you are late for work.)
4. Generating continuous opportunities for dialogue. Making people communicate,
rather than just listen, creates buy-in. Communication between leaders increases their
commitment and tends to strengthen the ties within the leadership group
5. Planning assimilation strategies for new members and new leaders. Successful
assimilation of new members into the community and managing their transition to
leadership roles are two key points of increasing engagement and commitment
 HR support of employee engagement
In order to get competitive advantages, organizations are referring to HR departments
to set the agenda to creating the culture of engagement at work. The HR departments
deal with personnel and their relations. Its responsibilities often involve standard
administrative tasks and assisting other managers by dealing with employees starting
from the selection process to the end of their contract. The HR department is in charge

30. 30
of staffing, selection, orientation, training and development, performance appraisal and
safety issues. As the HR department works so closely with employees and their issues,
it is clear that for employee engagement to take place, HR activities can help other
managerial practices when dealing with employees.
Strategic function.
Strategic HR helps to integrate HR policies and practices with the organization’s
strategic plans, giving the possibility to make the employees’ work more meaningful
and related to the strategic direction of the organization. Research shows that the
employees’ understanding of how their job is connected to the company’s strategy,
and how their job contributes to the company’s success, is one of the most important
drivers of employee engagement.
Recruitment and selection.
The recruitment process tries to ensure that the company has the right people placed in
the right jobs. This is important for further employee engagement, because if
employees are in tune with their jobs then they are psychologically and emotionally
present during their task performance, they do not block or withdraw from the job, and
do not perform it mechanically.
Training and development.
Learning, training and development can have two meanings for the employees. It can
be perceived as an intrinsic motivator, as they support employees’ growth, learning
and development. It can also be an extrinsic motivator, because they give employees
more tools they can use during their work for achieving their goals . Moreover, in the
survey conducted by Paradise (2008), employees ranked quality of workplace learning
opportunities as the first factor influencing their engagement.

31. 31
Survey Analysis On Cyient ltd
Organization Name:- Cyient ltd
Age Group Respondent
20-35 25%
35-50 75
Figure 1
Interpretation
 75% of the employees are divided into the 35 to 50 age group.
 25% of the employees are divided into the 20 to 35 age group.
0%
25%
75%
20 to 35 35 to 50

32. 32
Question 1. Do you agree that the Leaders in the Organization are inspirational?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Strongly Agree 50%
Disagree 50%
Figure 2
Interpretation
 50% of the employees are Strongly Agree with their leaders in the organization
are inspirational.
 50% of the employees are Disagree with their job leaders in the organization
are inspirational.
50 50
Strongly Agree Disagree
Series 1

33. 33
Question 2. Do you find your job Responsibilities to be justified ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Strongly Agree 70%
Disagree 30%
Figure 3
Interpretation:
 70% of the employees are Strongly Agree with their job responsibilities to be
justified.
 30% of the employees are Disagree with their job responsibilities to be
justified.
70%
30%
Storngly Agree
Disagree

34. 34
Question 3. How often do you get to communicate with your Bosses ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Strongly Agree 78%
Agree 22%
Figure 4
Interpretation:
 78% of the employees are Strongly Agree to communicate with their bosses.
 22% of the employees are Disagree to communicate with their bosses.
78%
22%
Strongly Agree
Disagree

35. 35
Question 4. Do you find the work environment in this organization is good ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Strongly agree 32%
Disagree 68%
Figure 5
Interpretation:
 68% of the employees are Disagree with the work environment in this
organization is not good.
 32% of the employees are Strongly Agree with the work environment in this
organization is good.
32%
68%
Strongly Agree
Disagree

36. 36
Question 5. How you been rewarded for your contribution ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Agree 62%
Disagree 38%
Figure 6
Interpretation:
 62% of the employees are Strongly Agree with their contribution has been
rewarded.
 38% of the employees are Disagree with their contribution has no rewarded.
.
38%
62%
Disagree
Agree

37. 37
Question 6. Does your organization motivate employees for team-work ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Strongly Agree 90%
Agree 10%
Figure 7
Interpretation:
 90% of the employees are Disagree with that the organization don’t
motivate employees for team-work.
 10% of the employees are Disagree with that the organization don’t
motivate employees for team-work.
90%
10%
Strongly Agree
Disagree

38. 38
Question 7. Do your job responsibilities makes you feel important ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Strongly Agree 54%
Disagree 46%
Figure 8
Interpretation:
 54% of the employees are Strongly Agree with their job responsibilities makes
them feel important.
 46% of the employees are Disagree with their job responsibilities makes them
feel important.
46%
54%
Disagree
Strongly Agree

39. 39
Question 8. Does your organization provide with enough resources to get your job
done in the best possible manner ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Strongly Agree 66%
Disagree 34%
Figure 9
Interpretation:
 66 % of the employees are Strongly Agree that the organization provides with
enough resources to get their job done in the best possible manner.
 34% of the employees are Disgree with that the organization not provides
enough resources to get their job done in the best possible manner.
66%
34%
Strongly Agree
Disagree

40. 40
Question 9. Are you aware of the mission of the organization ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Strongly Agree 66%
Agree 34%
Figure 10
Interpretation:
 66% of the employees are Strongly Agree are of the mission of the
organization.
 34% of the employees are Disagree with the mission of the organization.
34%
66%
Disagree
Strongly Agree

41. 41
Question 10. If Agree/ yes would you be able to quote the mission of the organization
?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Strongly Agree 84%
Disagree 16%
Figure 11
Interpretation:
 84% of the employees are Strongly agree to quote the mission of the
organization.
 16% of the employees are Disagree to quote the mission of the organization.
16%
84%
Disagree
Strongly Agree

42. 42
Question 11. Are you happy with the stress release programs offered by the
organization ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Disagree 40
Strongly Agree 35
Agree 25
Figure 12
Interpretation:
 40% of the employees are Disagree with the stress release program offered by
the organization.
 35 % of the employees are Strongly Agree with the stress release program
offered by the organization..
 25 % of the employees are Agree with the stress release program offered by the
organization..
40
35
25
Disagree Strongly Agree Agree
Series 1

43. 43
Question 12. In what ways your organization tries to engage the employees in work ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Strongly Agree 62%
Disagree 38%
Figure 13
Interpretation:
 62% of the employers are Strongly Agree with the organization who engages
the employees in the work.
 38% of the employers are Disagree with the organization who engages the
employees in work.
62%
38%
Strongly Agree Disagree

44. 44
Question 13. Do you understand how your role contributes to achieving business
outcomes?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Strongly Agree 54%
Disagree 46%
Figure 24
Interpretation:
 54 % of the employees are Strongly Agree with the contribution of achieving
business outcomes.
 46 % of the employees are Disagree with contribution of achieving business
outcomes.
46%
54%
Disagree Strongly Agree

45. 45
Question14. Do you trust the information you receive?
 Yes
 No
Yes 66%
No 34%
Figure 15
Interpretation:
 66% of the employees trust the information which they received from
organization.
 34% of the employees don’t trust the information which they received from
organization.
34%
66%
No Yes

46. 46
Question15. Do you feel valued for the work you do?
 Yes
 No
Yes 66%
No 34%
Figure 16
Interpretation:
 66% of the employees trust the information which they receives .
 34% of the employees don’t trust the information which they receives .
66%
34%
Yes No

47. 47
Conclusion
 The present research has applied engagement theory on the rarely investigated
group of employees and examined the engagement of administrative
employees in Cyient ltd.
 The aim was to measure the engagement level of employees and to identify the
factors that need to be improved to increase the level of engagement.
 Results of the study have shown that administrative employees within the
organization are generally not engaged.
 Employee engagement is influenced by three conditions: meaningfulness,
safety and availability.
 This means that managers need to change the frequency and the manner in
which they deliver performance feedback, and to make it part of their daily
managerial tasks.
 The amount of organizational support is perceived by employees through
organizational leadership.
 Therefore, being an organizational agent, department leaders need to increase
the level of the employees trust towards them personally and consequentially
towards organization.
 Supervisors should also be more accurate and transparent in the decision
making regarding employees and provide employees with the necessary work
related information.
 Department leaders need to demonstrate a higher level of support in work
related situations; they also need to show that they care about their employees
personally.
 Therefore, they need to create and support a relaxed atmosphere at work, where
positive social and work related interaction between employees could take
place.

48. 48
Suggestions
 The findings of this investigation, point out areas that the HR manager and
department leaders of Cyient ltd should take better care of to improve the
existing non-engaging situation.
 Relatively high scores on factors belonging to employees feeling of
meaningfulness, show that workers feel worthwhile, useful, valuable and see
the returns on their self investment.
 Administrative workers in educational organizations rarely have the chance to
contribute to the decision making processes and therefore may feel
unrecognized and invisible.
 Therefore, department leaders should pay more attention to this factor; it
should be their daily managerial task.
 While giving performance feedback, recommends concentrating on positive
sides of the performance, how well employee has performed and input in
achieving the outcome.
 Instead of criticizing, department leaders should suggest behaviors that can be
changed to improve future performance.
 Therefore, the support of department leaders plays an important role in shaping
a favorable employees’ perception the organizational support.
 However, employees do not always interpret these signals correctly. Therefore,
it is the leaders’ task to provide employees with effective feedback, which will
make them more engaged and improve their performance.
 Employees evaluate the support they receive from their organization and
decide whether or not to engage in relation to the resources they receive from
the organization.
 Results also show that not all employees have a sufficient amount of time to
restore their inner resources to be ready for high performance at work. It is
hard to give recommendations to Cyient ltd regarding this issue, because as an
organization, it cannot influence the employees’ activities and the level of pre
occupation outside of work hours.

49. 49
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Articles.
 Economics Times (Date-16/12/2011, Pg- 3,4,and 5).
 Employee Behavior towards Organization (Author- Steam Fleming, Edition-
3rd edition, Pg no- 18 to 34)
 Book Referred:-
 Human Resources Management ( Author-Vipul Publication,
Sem-5 TyBms,Edition- 4th edition, Unit 3 & 4, Pg no-81 to 102).
 Employees Behavior (Author -Manan Prakeshan, Edition-
3rd edition, Unit 4, Pg no- 52 to 64).
 Research methodology (Author-N.G.Kale & M.Ahmed, Sem-4 SyBms,
Edition-3rd edition, Unit 1, Pg no- 4 to 16.)
 WebSite Referred.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_engagement
 http://marketresearch.about.com/
 http://www.epicentertechnology.com/
 http://iveybusinessjournal.com/
 http://www.custominsight.com/

50. 50
ANNEXURE
Organization Name:- Cyient ltd
Question 1. Do you agree that the Leaders in the Organization are inspirational ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Question 2. Do you find your job Responsibilities to be justified ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Question 3. How often do you get to communicate with your Bosses ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Question 4. Do you find the work environment in this organization is good ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Question 5. How you been rewarded for your contribution ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Question 6. Does your organization motivate employees for team-work ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree

51. 51
Question 7. Do your job responsibilities makes you feel important ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Question 8. Does your organization provide with enough resources to get your job
done in the best possible manner ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Question 9. Are you aware of the mission of the organization ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Question 10. If Agree/ yes would you be able to quote the mission of the organization
?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Question 11. Are you happy with the stress release programs offered by the
organization ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Question 12. In what ways your organization tries to engage the employees in work ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree

52. 52
Question 13. Do you understand how your role contributes to achieving business
outcomes ?
 Strongly Agree
 Agree.
 Disagree
Question 14. Do you trust the information you receive ?
 Yes
 No
 May be
Question 15. Do you feel valued for the work you do ?
 Yes
 No